Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


It is simple, but it's also crazy. The government gives stop signs certain criteria, but that doesn't permit the goverment to forbid anyone from displaying a stop sign. Sure, you can be convicted if you misuse one, but the crime is the misuse, not the speech itself.

huh? I can't put a stop sign in the road in front of my house, can I? that's what a guy faking Medal of Honor status is doing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So a law against defacing a government building with grafitti wouldn't be proper?

Can you think of a good reason to impose more severe criminal penalties for defacing a government building instead of a privately owned building? I can't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
huh? I can't put a stop sign in the road in front of my house, can I? that's what a guy faking Medal of Honor status is doing.

You can't put a stop sign in the road, and if you if you sell tickets to a speaking tour featuring a fake Medal of Honor winner, you can be prosecuted for fraud. But if you put a stop sign on your rec room wall, or if you dress up as Audie Murphy for Halloween, you're not harming anyone.

You seem to think I'm saying that the government can never prosecute anyone for wearing fake medals. Not so.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Can you think of a good reason to impose more severe criminal penalties for defacing a government building instead of a privately owned building? I can't.

I can think of a reason why one may be a federal criminal offense and the other may not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can't put a stop sign in the road, and if you if you sell tickets to a speaking tour featuring a fake Medal of Honor winner, you can be prosecuted for fraud. But if you put a stop sign on your rec room wall, or if you dress up as Audie Murphy for Halloween, you're not harming anyone.

You seem to think I'm saying that the government can never prosecute anyone for wearing fake medals. Not so.

can we move on? don't you guys have a new scandal? maybe a Bush appointee tore a "Do Not Remove" tag off a mattress or something?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I can think of a reason why one may be a federal criminal offense and the other may not.

I was trying to avoid the Schechter Poultry thing, so let's pretend we're talking about a state government.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can we move on? don't you guys have a new scandal? maybe a Bush appointee tore a "Do Not Remove" tag off a mattress or something?

An Illustrated Guide to GOP Scandals.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can we move on? don't you guys have a new scandal? maybe a Bush appointee tore a "Do Not Remove" tag off a mattress or something?

You're the only one who's brought up "scandal" or "Bush" or "Clinton." I just think it's stupid.

Oh. I can see why you thought I was talking about W. My bad.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was trying to avoid the Schechter Poultry thing, so let's pretend we're talking about a state government.

Are we now talking about medals issued by a well regualted militia? If you change the analogy so that it's not an analogy, it's easy to make an argument look unpersuasive.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are we now talking about medals issued by a well regualted militia? If you change the analogy so that it's not an analogy, it's easy to make an argument look unpersuasive.

And to show that I can play even in "change the analogy":

Why can a state not conclude that it should have enhanced penalties for defacing government buildings because (a) defacing government building belong to everyone, and defacing public property is particularly demoralizing and (b) there is an agency/incentive problem with government property that is likely to result in reduced enforcement as compared with private parties who have full incentive to stop and/or apprehend those who deface private property. A government might conclude it will balance the lower likelihood of being caught with a higher fine/penalty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are we now talking about medals issued by a well regualted militia? If you change the analogy so that it's not an analogy, it's easy to make an argument look unpersuasive.

I was just talking about your graffiti hypo.

Why can a state not conclude that it should have enhanced penalties for defacing government buildings because (a) defacing government building belong to everyone, and defacing public property is particularly demoralizing and (b) there is an agency/incentive problem with government property that is likely to result in reduced enforcement as compared with private parties who have full incentive to stop and/or apprehend those who deface private property. A government might conclude it will balance the lower likelihood of being caught with a higher fine/penalty.

(a) doesn't make sense to me. Government buildings may belong a little bit to everyone, but is it worse to harm everyone a little than one private property owner a lot? I don't see it.

(b) seems empirically baseless. Sure, a legislature could conclude that, and it would be immune from a rational-basis challenge, but do you really think that's right? And can you think of criminal sanctions that work this way? Civil sanctions, sure (antitrust treble damages, e.g.), but criminal?

[Hank Chinaski]

someone said it only limits speech that uses gov't resources. is that true? I remember Harvey Pekar on Letterman wouldn't tell Dave who he was voting for because of the Hatch act. was he ill-informed?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


You're a damned relativist is what you are.

Darwin bless,
Sebastian

No I am not. I think it is universally morally wrong for people to wear military medals to deceive other people into thinking they have earned them when they have not earned them. I also think it is universally morally wrong for governments to institute laws making the wearing of such medals illegal.

Where is the relativism?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
someone said it only limits speech that uses gov't resources. is that true? I remember Harvey Pekar on Letterman wouldn't tell Dave who he was voting for because of the Hatch act. was he ill-informed?

The Office of Special Counsel's web site suggests he is misinformed. There are two categories of federal employees listed, both of whom may "express opinions about candidates and issues." But I'm a little embarrassed to be relying on materials like that when you are citing a cartoonist appearing on a late-night talk show, but what can I do?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


The government gives the awards/insignia per certain criteria.

S_A_M

OK

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The government can regulate how and when they are lawfully displayed.

How about: The government can regulate how and when they are lawfully displayed by employees of the federal government.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man The government can also punish people who lie about whether the government gave _them_ those awards.

How about: The government can also punish federal employees who lie about whether the government gave _them_ those awards.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Seems simple to me, but I guess I'm just a totalitarian.

S_A_M

Why do you need to include civilians?